Sin and Repentance

Having defined simony and surveyed its many forms, we will now consider its moral weight and consequences. Theologians have ranked simony among the gravest of sins. The question of repentance is correspondingly severe: what must the simoniac do, and what may he hope for?

Gravity and Effects

Throughout the relevant literature, simony is held to be one of the gravest of all sins, both in its aggravations and effects. While not all theologians agreed, many spoke of simony simply as the greatest of all sins. Beyond the common observation that Simon is the first of all heretics, the canonical locus classicus for this claim stands in the Liber extra: “in comparison, other crimes are reckoned as practically nothing”;¹Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.32. it is “a plague that surpasses other diseases in its magnitude.”²Ibid., 5.3.6. This often serves as the standard point of departure for later treatments. For example, William Peraldus began with the above statement in presenting eight things that make simony detestable and twelve insults that simony inflicts upon God.³William Peraldus, Summae virtutum ac vitiorum, 2.7 (pp. 108–13).

Other authors likewise developed extensive catalogs of the ways in which simony is uniquely grievous. In addressing simony, William of Saint-Amour cataloged five harmful effects on the preacher who sells the word of God: essentially, he blinds himself with the gifts he takes and makes himself a slave to those who pay him.⁴{William of Saint-Amour}, Si Quis Diligit Me, §§ 11–15 (186:14–187:6). On similar grounds, simony has been associated with various judgments. Henry III declared it manifest that because of simony, famine, pestilence, and sword had come upon the sons of men.⁵Raoul Glaber, Historiarum Libri Quinque, 5.5.25 (pp. 133–34). The speech is quoted in Chapter 1, ↗.

Many recorded execrations of its effect on the church at large. Wycliffe put it sharply: “Simony, therefore, is the cause why a great part of what is called the Church lies scattered and dead.”⁶Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 1 (14:9–10). Henry Burton devoted an entire chapter to “the miserable fruits and effects of simony,” beginning with these words: “The effects and fruits of simony are no less miserable, than the censures are grievous, and the punishments thereof intolerable. For as Simon is the father of all simonists, so simony is the mother of all mischiefs in the church.”⁷Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 93. These writers traced the church’s disorders back to avarice in holy things.

A Two-Table Offense

Occasionally, theologians have asked whether simony is a first table or second table offense. That is, is it a wrong committed against God or man? Generally, it is concluded that simony is a sin against both tables. William Ames captured both dimensions together in his summary condemnation of the practice: “Hence it is a sin of simony, to buy or sell, or any way exchange a holy and spiritual [thing] for a temporal; the reason is, first, because holy things ought to be used as holy, not polluted, and profaned, which then they are, when they are brought down, as worldly things, into temporal contracts, being it is against the religion and reverence which is due to holy things. Secondly, because it is injustice to sell those things which are to be bestowed on free cost, Matt. 10:8.”⁸Ames, Conscience, 5.229. Simony transgresses both religion (first table) and justice (second table).

Two arguments will demonstrate this: Aquinas on the first table and Alexander of Hales on the second. As with most discussions of the matter, these two address the two-table nature of simony in considerations of the eighth commandment (“you shall not steal”),⁹In medieval literature, this is typically labeled the seventh command, following the traditional Augustinian enumeration. where simony is typically categorized along with usury.¹⁰E.g., Biel, Collectorium, IV, d. 15, q. 3 (sig. q5vb).

The First Table

If simony is treated under the command not to steal, this raises the question of how it could be regarded as matter pertaining to the first table of the law. Aquinas remarks on this in his Quodlibet where he handles the question of whether offenses against the first table are greater than offenses against the second table. In particular, he responds to the objection that the second table is greater than the first because simony is the greatest offense and, as a species of avarice, is a second table offense.

This hypothesis fails, Aquinas contended, because simony is not exclusively a violation of the second table: “Simony is not the greatest sin absolutely speaking, but the greatest among those which are committed with regard to monetary contracts; and this is also because a man behaves irreverently toward sacred things, in which he touches upon the sins which are against the precepts of the first table.”¹¹Aquinas, Quodlibet, V, q. 10, a. 2, ad 2 (p. 114). While simony was often regarded as the greatest sin, Aquinas denied that may be regarded so in any absolute sense. However, he pointed out that the reason it is considered so great is precisely because of its connection to the first table, being a profaning of holy things.

The Second Table

Conversely, Alexander of Hales responded to the opposite notion, that simony is only a first table violation.¹²The objection: “And since simony consists in selling or buying a spiritual thing, or something annexed to a spiritual thing, and since by this an injury is committed against God in itself, not against the neighbor, it seems that simony is forbidden among the precepts of the first table, not the second. Therefore it is not forbidden by this commandment.” {Alexander of Hales}, Summa Halensis, III, P. 2, Inq. 3, T. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4, n. 1 (p. 569). He proceeded as Aquinas, framing the objection as a false dichotomy that acknowledges one offense without the other: “It must be said that in simony there are two things: the selling or buying, and the receiving. As regards the selling or buying of a priceless thing, which is divine, an injury is committed against God and it is a sin against the worship of God and against the first precept of the first table. But as regards the receiving of money or of a temporal thing, which cannot be possessed justly, one sins against this commandment.”¹³Ibid., III, P. 2, Inq. 3, T. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4 (pp. 569–70).

Alexander distinguished between the exchange (“selling or buying”) of the spiritual thing and the exchange (“receiving”) of the material thing. The first is a first table offense, since God has exclusive ownership over divine things. However, in the case of the material thing, one has wrongly received something that someone else should instead have. This constitutes a second table offense.

Alexander grounded this assertion of an unjust deprivation in Augustine’s maxim that “everything that is wrongfully possessed is another’s.”¹⁴Ibid., III, P. 2, Inq. 3, T. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4 (p. 570); Augustine, Epistulae, 153.6.26 (CSEL 44, 426:9–10). He continued from there to make the direct connection to the sin of theft: “that is, it is to be reckoned as another’s property. And in this way, in this respect, simony is theft, inasmuch as it is drawn to the special name of sacrilege.”¹⁵{Alexander of Hales}, Summa Halensis, III, P. 2, Inq. 3, T. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4 (p. 570). One may ask who has been stolen from, given that the purchaser willingly parts with his money. But Augustine spoke of a more general wrong being done to the faithful, to whom belong all things. While this idea is present in other passages (Prov. 13:22; Eccles. 2:26; 1 Cor. 3:21), he remarked on a Septuagintal addition to Proverbs 17:6, “To the faithful is the whole world of riches; but to the faithless not even a penny.”¹⁶Augustine, Epistulae, 153.6.26 (CSEL 44, 426:4–6). In other words, if both parties are wrong, then the money still counts as being “stolen,” belonging to the faithful.

Simony is a first table offense because it transgresses God’s statutes regarding worship and spiritual things. It is a second table offense because it disenfranchises the godly.

Associated Corruptions

While simony is associated with a constellation of other corruptions,¹⁷For an overview of the medieval rhetoric against simony, see Cushing, Reform and the Papacy, 117–20. two in particular are worth examining. The first is a direct consequence as sin begets sin: the commercialization of the ministry corrupts the word itself, whether by natural incentive or by divine judgment. The second is sodomy, an analogous corruption of nature for simony’s corruption of grace.

False Doctrine

Among the corruptions attending simony, its connection to false doctrine is the most pronounced consequence. When the ministry of the word is motivated by money, the word itself is corrupted. Theologians have identified two aspects of this phenomenon, the natural and the supernatural. On one hand, corruption flows from human incentives, and on the other hand, on account of simoniacal dealings, God himself takes away truth and permits it to be replaced by error.

The association is ancient. In the second century, Irenaeus declared broadly that “all who in any way adulterate the truth, and do harm to the preaching of the Church, are disciples and successors of Simon the Samaritan magician.”¹⁸Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, I.27.4 (p. 274). While Irenaeus was not here speaking explicitly of selling the word, his observation establishes a pattern: the spirit of Simon stands behind every corruption of Christian proclamation.

The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 100–160) provides a natural explanation for why the paid prophet corrupts his message. Speaking of one who requires payment to prophesy, Hermas wrote, “He attaches himself to the double-minded and the empty, and prophesies to them in a corner, and deceives them, speaking to them all things emptily, according to their desires; for he answers the empty with empty things. For an empty vessel put together with the empty ones is not broken, but they agree with one another.”¹⁹Hermas, The Shepherd, Mand. 11.13. The prophet for hire gravitates toward those willing to pay, who are themselves “empty vessels.” Having no substance of their own, they readily receive whatever the prophet supplies, and what such a prophet supplies is whatever his audience desires to hear. The commercial arrangement ensures that the message follows money rather than the truth.

Jerome offered a more striking explanation that operates on a supernatural plane. Commenting on the mercenary prophets of Micah 3:11, he wrote, “But the Prophets of Jerusalem also used to divine for money, not knowing that prophecy is one thing and divination is another; for never in the Scriptures is ‘divination’ taken in a good sense. ‘There shall be no augury in Jacob,’ it says, ‘nor divination in Israel’ [Num. 23:23]. Indeed, they seemed to themselves to be Prophets, but because they were receiving money, their prophecy became divination.”²⁰Jerome, In Proph. Min., In Mich. I, 3:9–12 (col. 471). Jerome made this remark immediately before likening prophesying for money to the offer of Simon Magus. The implication is not merely that mercenary preachers tend toward falsehood through natural incentive, but that the prophetic character of their utterance is exchanged for divination through divine judgment.

We have already remarked on how frequently later authors referenced Jerome on this passage.²¹See Chapter 11, ↗. Later writers repeated the same thoughts. In the very same passage where William of Saint-Amour quoted Jerome to this effect, he gave the complementary natural explanation: “Although it is permitted for them to receive food and drink as small gifts, it is nevertheless not permitted for them to receive large gifts […]. Therefore, it is much less permitted for preachers to receive from their listeners such gifts, lest by this they burden their listeners; or lest the Gospel become hateful; or lest the preachers themselves lose the freedom of rebuking.”²²{William of Saint-Amour}, Collectiones, d. 4, sign. 40 (p. 453). Gifts function as bribes. The preacher who accepts them becomes obligated to his benefactor and can no longer rebuke freely. Here the explanation turns back from the supernatural to the natural: the word is corrupted by human constraint; the preacher says what his patron wishes to hear rather than what God has given him to say.²³Paludanus made a similar comment in his discourse on simony: “One must not make the collection of money the end of preaching, like those who ‘estimate godliness to be a gain’ [1 Tim. 6:5], preaching for no other purpose than to collect money; and to get it they even fabricate indulgences and compose many lies in their preaching.” Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 5, concl. 2 (p. 320b).

English divines recognized the same connection. Henry Burton described simony and sacrilege as having different immediate effects but working together to one ultimate ruin: “both together cause prophesyings to fail, the people to perish, and idolatry to spread itself.”²⁴Burton, Israels Fast, 29. To sell the word corrupts it as much as failing to fund it takes it away.

Simony turns ministers into merchants—a natural corruption—and causes prophecy to fail—a supernatural one. As Jerome observed centuries earlier, the mercenary prophet’s word ceases to be prophecy at all.

Sodomy

In Chapter 10, we discussed the association of simony with leprosy.²⁵See ↗. Medieval literature links simony to sodomy as well. This association is less prevalent than that of leprosy, but it still constitutes a recognizable strand of the tradition.

Consider the Summoner and the Pardoner of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. They are both simoniacs. Though it is his duty to call parishioners to appear before the archdeacon’s court, the Summoner turns a blind eye for a fee: for a quart of wine he lets a man keep his concubine for a year.²⁶Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, 649–58 (pp. 19–20). The Pardoner sells indulgences brought from Rome and a bag of feigned relics, accruing more wealth in a day than a poor parson earns in two months.²⁷Ibid., 686–706 (p. 21). “The grossest form of simony was exactly what the Pardoner does: the selling of indulgences.” Patterson, Chaucer’s Pardoner on the Couch, 664. Both possess features that reinforce the picture of their spiritual corruption. Chaucer describes the Summoner as leprous, with a disgusting visage, red and purulent;²⁸Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, 623–33 (p. 19). the Pardoner’s effeminate behavior and relationship with the Summoner are suggestive of sodomy. The Pardoner is a beardless man with a high-pitched voice who sings a love song while the Summoner carries the bass; the narrator declines to say whether he is “a gelding [castrated horse] or a mare.”²⁹Ibid., 672–91 (pp. 20–21). Chaucer chose marks that already carried this sense: the Summoner’s leprosy manifests his simony,³⁰“The Summoner’s leprosy identifies him as an established threat to society because he is a simoniac.” Bryon Lee Grigsby, Pestilence, 87. and the Pardoner’s suggested sodomy does the same.³¹“We can now infer that the Pardoner may be thought to be a mare—a sodomite—because he is a simoniac.” Patterson, Chaucer’s Pardoner on the Couch, 666; “if the Pardoner is indeed a sodomist, this would be a perfect sign of his ‘character’ as a simoniac.” Vance, Chaucer’s Pardoner, 736–37.

One scholar wrote, “Not merely does an analogy exist between simony and leprosy, between simony and sodomy, but an identification. The simoniac is a leper; the simoniac is a sodomist.”³²McVeigh, Chaucer’s Portraits of the Pardoner and Summoner, 58. Peraldus explained the reason for this association:

The second thing that makes simony detestable is that it is a spiritual sodomy. Just as in bodily sodomy he who is the work of nature acts against nature, so in simony he who is the work of grace acts against grace, because he has been redeemed by grace. And just as on the day of judgment the sodomite will be struck speechless according to the meaning of his name,³³Jerome gives the meaning of the name as “cattle, silent, or blindness, or their likeness.” Jerome, Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum, De Genesi, S (PL 23:828). Peraldus’s point is that the sodomite will fittingly have nothing to say in his own defense at the judgment. because he was an enemy of nature, which had made him—for as far as in him lies, the sodomite destroys the human race—so the simoniac will be struck speechless, who was an enemy of the grace by which he had been redeemed. And just as under the natural law sodomy is judged either the greatest sin or one of the greatest, because it is against nature, so in the time of grace, under the evangelical law, simony is judged the greatest sin, because it is properly contrary to grace. For properly it acts against that word of Matt. 10: “Freely you have received, freely give.” Whence simoniacs are rightly signified by the Sodomites who wanted to break down the doors of Lot, of whom it is said in Gen. 19: “And they were now on the point of breaking down the doors of Lot,” etc.³⁴William Peraldus, Summae virtutum ac vitiorum, 2.7 (p. 108).

Wycliffe affirmed this judgment, adding this simple explanation: “For just as in bodily sodomy seed is lost against nature, the seed from which an individual of the human race would be formed, so in that [spiritual] sodomy the seed of the word of God is cast away, through which a spiritual generation in Christ Jesus would be created.”³⁵Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 1 (8:27–30). The seed of the word of God is to be given freely, but the simoniac ministers fruitlessly.

Repentance

James Metford summarized the canonical and casuistical position concisely: “you are bound in conscience to resign whatever is so gotten, and to make restitution of what profits you have received.”³⁶Metford, A General Discourse of Simony, 155. These obligations are treated at length by the schoolmen.³⁷E.g., Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio B), d. 25, q. 7 (foll. 189rb–190rb).

While the doctrine of simony encompassed the sale and purchase of all kinds of spiritual things, the bulk of the medieval material available on repentance from simony consists of legal code regulating orders and benefices. Therefore, we will begin by outlining the categories of simoniacal ordinations before covering associated matters.

Categories of Simoniacal Ordinations

In canon law and the writings of the jurists, the question that recurs most is the matter of ordinations, either ones that occur simoniacally through a purchase or those that are administered by one who is himself a simoniac. Within these works, such problematic ordinations fall in one of three categories. One can be ordained

• simoniacally by simoniacs,

• simoniacally by non-simoniacs, or

• non-simoniacally by simoniacs.³⁸This threefold distinction originates from the Lateran synod of 1060, Weiland, ed., Concilium Lateranense posterius, can. 5 (p. 551); cf. Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 107; Lombard, Libri IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, c. 3 (p. 909).

The first category is of the most obvious sort. The second occurs when one may have his ordination arranged by a purchase of which the administrator is unaware. In the final category, no simony is committed in the ordination, but the ordainer is later found to be a simoniac on other grounds. Certain writings still label such a man a “simoniac” though he is not guilty of actual simony: “it is not the guilt of the crime that makes them simoniacs, but the ordination by a simoniac.”³⁹Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 107.

Restitution

Those who obtained an office by simony were to be deposed from the office and deprived of the benefice.⁴⁰E.g., “deposed perpetually from the ministry of the altar.” Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.11; “remove them […] from the churches so acquired.” Ibid., 5.3.13. Panormitanus reconciled the two: “a simoniac holding a benefice is not deposed from his order when he is not convicted by way of accusation, but is deprived of the benefice simoniacally acquired.” Nicolaus de Tudeschis (Panormitanus), Commentaria, ad X 5.3.13, no. 2 (fol. 71vb). Nuns who had obtained entry by simony were to be expelled from their monastery “without hope of restoration” and thrust into a place of stricter rule “to do perpetual penance”; the same canon extended the rule to monks and other religious.⁴¹See Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.40.

The one non-simoniacally ordained by a simoniac may remain in his office.⁴²Those who address this point frequently cite Mansi, ed., Concilium Placentinum, can. 3 (Mansi 20:805). This required a laying on of hands to signify their reconciliation⁴³“If anyone is ordained by simoniacs, […] he is not re-ordained, but is reconciled by the imposition of hands of a catholic bishop.” Honorius Augustodunensis, De offendiculo, c. 51 (p. 56). and was only granted due to “the necessity of the times.”⁴⁴Weiland, ed., Concilium Lateranense posterius, can. 5 (p. 551); cf. Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 107. None should willfully be ordained by one he believes to be a simoniac, but one ignorantly ordained in such circumstances may keep his position.⁴⁵See Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.35.

These penalties apply only to conventional simony. For mental simony, no restitution or resignation can be required.⁴⁶For the category, see Chapter 6, ↗. E.g., “they are not held liable for simony of this kind.” Ibid., 5.3.46; “in mental simony the sin can be abolished by penance alone.” Nicolaus de Tudeschis (Panormitanus), Commentaria, ad X 5.3.34, no. 5 (fol. 80ra); cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 6, ad 6. Sources that state the exemption go on to insist that the absence of restitution does not make mental simony any less sin; one does not clear himself of transgressions against God’s law simply by evading the laws of man.⁴⁷E.g., “nevertheless before God and in the truth of the matter he is a simoniac.” Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio B), d. 25, q. 3 (fol. 185va).

Moreover, Peter’s sentence against the seller stands: “your silver perish” (Acts 8:20). The one who purchased a spiritual thing by simony has no right to the return of his money.⁴⁸See Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 38; cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 6, ad 1; Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.33. The Puritan William Attersoll echoed many before him when he presented the dilemma and conclusion: “No restitution is to be made to the giver, that deserveth justly to lose whatsoever he hath given; neither ought the receiver to retain it, because he can lay no just claim and title unto it: so that it ought to be bestowed upon godly and holy uses.”⁴⁹Attersoll, Commentary on Numbers, 326. This raises the question of what those holy uses might be.

Almsgiving

Almsgiving is no justification for simony.⁵⁰See Chapter 6, ↗. However, the question of what may be done with such ill-gotten (illicite acquisitum) funds is another question. Some permitted them to be given to the poor, others argued that they may not.

For example, Bonaventure offered two categories of ill-gotten wealth:

1. Wealth wrongly exchanged; ownership transferred (e.g., prostitution) and

2. Wealth falsely exchanged; no ownership transferred (e.g., theft, simony, usury).⁵¹Bonaventure, Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 15, q. 1, ad rat. (p. 371).

In the case of a wrongful exchange, one may give alms, though not as an offering. However, in the case of a false exchange, the transfer of ownership is a fiction. Just as with theft, the money may not be kept, and no alms can be made of it. Therefore, Bonaventure required that the wealth of simony be restored rather than permitting it to be given as alms.⁵²Ibid., IV, d. 15, q. 1, ad rat. (p. 371).

However, Aquinas offered a third category:

1. Wealth unjustly taken (e.g., theft and usury),

2. Wealth unjustly taken for something unjustly given (e.g., simony), and

3. Wealth lawfully acquired, but out of an unlawful act (e.g., prostitution).⁵³Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 32, a. 7.

For the first category, restitution must be made. But for the latter categories, alms may be given so long as they are not given as an offering. As with the wages of a prostitute (Deut. 23:18), they cannot be given as an offering, but they may, and indeed ought to, be given as alms.⁵⁴Ibid., II-II, q. 32, a. 7, ad 2.

Aquinas and Bonaventure are representative of the range of positions within the tradition. There was agreement that a simoniac seller cannot keep the money, but whether it should be returned to the buyer or given as alms was not a matter settled with certainty. Ultimately, most concluded that it must be given to the church.⁵⁵Suárez, De Religione, cap. 60, n. 8 (p. 656).

Forgiveness

Later canon law excommunicated the offender. The English canonist John Godolphin summarized: “The canon law […] excommunicates all simoniacs to that degree as not to be absolved but by the pope himself, nor by him till at the point of death.”⁵⁶Godolphin, Repertorium Canonicum, 556; cf. Friedberg, ed., Extravag. comm., 5.1.2 (col. 1289). The propriety of such regulations is generally affirmed by the schoolmen.⁵⁷E.g., Nicolaus de Tudeschis (Panormitanus), Commentaria, ad X 5.3.4, no. 5 (fol. 69vb); Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio B), d. 25, q. 7 (fol. 189va).

Of course, proto-Reformers and Protestants rejected any framework that hinged absolution on an earthly head of the church. Beyond the illegitimacy of the pope’s authority, the particular claim regarding simony is ironic. Among Wycliffe’s “errors” condemned at the Council of Constance is the charge that “the pope does not dispense from simony, nor from a rash vow, since he is himself the chief simoniac.”⁵⁸Mansi, ed., Council of Constance (1414--1418), sess. 15 (Mansi 27:749C).

Instead, we may inquire regarding the availability of divine forgiveness. Peter gave Simon a qualified command to repent “if perhaps” (εἰ ἄρα; si forte) his intention may be forgiven (Acts 8:22). This conditional is taken by many as an indication that forgiveness for simony is exceedingly difficult to obtain.⁵⁹E.g., William Peraldus, Summae virtutum ac vitiorum, 2.7 (pp. 112–13). Wycliffe argued that to be cleansed of simony requires an “extraordinary miracle.”⁶⁰Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 1 (1:24–2:1); cf. ibid., cap. 2 (24:10–13).

This difficulty of forgiveness is not on account of any miserliness in God but on account of the ensnarement of the sin and man’s weakness to turn from it. Peraldus compared the simoniac to a fish in a trap: he cannot easily exit the way he came (repent), and the only other way out is by being caught. Because he does not easily renounce what he has taken, he has one foot in hell.⁶¹William Peraldus, Summae virtutum ac vitiorum, 2.7 (p. 112).

Several likewise noted that many exposed simoniacs profess repentance but withhold what they ought to give in true repentance.⁶²E.g., “there are many who say they repent, yet retain what they have taken.” Vermigli, Loci Communes, 3.8.38 (p. 613). While Vermigli spoke of sin more generally, he pointed out the difficulty of restoring ill-gotten goods in light of Peter’s admonition. In recounting the life of the hermit Romuald of Ravenna, Peter Damian remarked on his difficulty restoring simoniacs to repentance: “For that poisonous heresy, especially in the episcopal order, is so hard and so set against being converted—forever promising, forever putting it off from one day to the next and deferring it to a time still to come—that a Jew could sooner be brought to the faith than a heretical brigand could be fully roused to repentance.”⁶³Peter Damian, Vita Beati Romualdi, cap. 35 (PL 144:987A). The simoniac professes to repent but perpetually defers his conversion to a tomorrow that never comes.

Conclusion

Simony is a sin against both tables of the law, offending God by profaning what is holy and offending man by defrauding the faithful. Its gravity is attested across centuries of Christian witness, from the canonical judgment that other crimes are “practically nothing,” to Wycliffe’s lament that it leaves a great part of the church “scattered and dead.” Not even the pope was held exempt from its reach.

The weight of the sin makes repentance all the more urgent. The simoniac must resign what he has wrongly obtained, restore what he has wrongly received, and seek divine forgiveness for what no human penalty can fully address. The tradition insisted on the difficulty of that repentance, but equally on the mercy of the Lord.